Pure Socialism
Vic Biorseth, http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com
(Note that a “pure” Socialism does not exist; in point of fact, Socialism equals Marxism, and all historical manifestations of it have been or are dictatorships, masquerading as free societies. This definition describes the ideal Socialism that pro-Socialism idealists promote and hope to achieve. This is a comparative definition, meant to be looked at in tandem with the parallel, or opposite definition at the Pure Democracy page.)
Pure Socialism involves a centrally planned economic system, which requires a government controlled population of workers to operate the system. Therefore Socialism is both an economic system and a government system. Socialism absolutely requires government control of all economic as well as political and public affairs.
Pure Socialism represents a completely planned economy, in which the means of production are collectively held, and in which state authorities rather than free market forces directly determine prices, output and production. Socialism is an economic and social system under which total equality of individuals is given preference over individual liberty, and under which all of the economic means of production, distribution and exchange are collectively owned.
The most important features of the planned economy are:
- production targets for different segments of the economy,
- rationing of certain commodities to determine demand for them,
- price and wage fixing by the state, and
- a conscripted labor market in which workers are assigned jobs by the state.
The right of the individual to excel, or to improve himself or his condition is denied, along with all other individual rights, in favor of one single individual right: the right to be exactly the same as everyone else. The balance between the mutually exclusive ideals of individual liberty and total equality always favors total equality at the expense of individual liberty.
Pure Socialism cannot coexist with the honest popular elections of representative Democracy because no population would ever willingly (or knowingly) vote for the total loss of individual rights required to achieve pure Socialism; thus the biggest problem of Socialism is how to select the leadership. In practice, the Socialist method of selecting leaders has been by use of force. In pure Socialism, all power is vested in the central government, and, economically speaking, the government does everything, and the individual, nothing, other than what he is told.
The rule of subsidiarity, whose two main precepts are that everyone who is affected by an issue should be in the jurisdiction responsible for it, and that as few people as possible who are not affected by an issue should have jurisdiction or responsibility over it, says that all political authority should be vested in the most local jurisdiction possible. Problems affecting only a town should be handled by that town, county problems by that county, etc., and problems that can be handled by any part of the private sector should not be given over to any level of government at all.
The rule of subsidiarity is denied under pure Socialism because the centrally planned economy requires the top level of government to be in charge of all aspect of economic, political and social life. Low level and local matters are handled, in accordance with central planning, by various bureaucrats in the vast government bureaucracy that is required of Socialism.
The ideal Socialist situation follows:
- The government should provide me with an education comparable to that of everyone else.
- The government should provide me with housing comparable to everyone else’s housing.
- The government should provide all of the food and other necessities of life and make them available in the market place.
- The government should provide me with a job, and provide payment for the job that is equitable and comparable to that of everyone else.
- The government should provide me with subsistence payments during periods of unemployment, and this pay should be comparable to working wages.
- The government should provide me with decent health care.
- The government should provide all the tools, factories, raw materials, farm implements, etc., which are necessary to sustain society.
- The government should provide me with a decent retirement income, comparable to that of everyone else.
- The government should provide me with all that I need, from the cradle to the grave.
- The government should take care of me and make me feel secure, and not let my world change.
Such a situation is, of course, possible only under the fiercest form of totalitarianism imaginable, where the central government involves itself deeply in the most minute and mundane details of the private affairs of the individual citizen.
Majoritarianism must be replaced by absolute authoritarianism (to use the Orwellian Newspeak terms favored by America's pro-Socialist Left against them.) The majority cannot rule; everything must be centrally planned. (Many modern Leftists seek to migrate from majoritarianism through minoritarianism to pure Socialist totalitarianism, by promoting “big tent” politics in which alliances of minorities might out vote the majority.)
Von Mises argued that a planned economy is not only wasteful, but must ultimately fail because it lacks the most efficient basis of resource allocation, which is a natural price system, and it cannot institute a price system without betraying and destroying its political principle.
On the bright side, since the government is the only employer, pays all salaries and holds all wealth and property, there are no taxes to worry about. Only work quotas.
Under pure Socialism, increased human population presents a problem. Experience shows that men not free to improve their own condition show less initiative, become more dependant, are seen by their own government as “mouths to feed” rather than as human capital, and they consume wealth rather than generate it. Socialists, therefore, always champion human population control.
Socialism, or, the dictatorship of the Proletariat, is the so-called evolutionary stepping stone envisioned by Marx and Engles on the path to Communist utopia. Communism, as envisioned by Marx and Engles, of course, does not exist, has never existed, will never exist, and is quite impossible. Socialism is the antithesis of representative government. No people that ever entered the Socialist “phase” ever got out of it on their own initiative. Socialism is now the “end” toward which all Leftists drive, using any means available.
The socio-political counter-argument to Pure Socialism is Pure Democracy.
The “theory” containing Socialism is described at the Marxism link.
As you can see in the brief Definition Of Socialism link, there is not, never was, and cannot ever be any dreamed-of ultimate Communist, utopian, classless, “workers paradise” in which history stops and there is no hunger or poverty in the world. Socialism is the true goal of all sham movements and governments that call themselves Communist. Socialism has never fed the hungry or aided the impoverished, anywhere, ever. Quite the opposite.
Socialism equals Dictatorship by another name.
Lincoln described our unique American form of representative government as “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. Socialism opposes representative government on the theory that the masses are not wise enough to govern themselves and are therefore in need of an intellectual elite to rule them and make important life decisions for them. Elections in Socialist lands are always either corrupted or sham elections. Most usually, when elections are held at all, there is only one candidate representing one and only one political Party. Bureaucrats and government officials gain and hold office at the sole discretion of the dictator.
No matter how “benign” any given Socialist dictator may appear to be, it must always be remembered that he is not the last dictator, only the current one. There will be another. And another. History will not stop.
Obama is clearly a collectivist and a redistributionist, who has stated that he views our Constitutional Bill of Rights as a “set of negative constraints on government” spelling out what the US government cannot do to the people, while failing to say what he and other Socialists think the US government should do for the people. He will move us toward or into Socialism just as far as he is able, which means cutting back on individual rights and promoting social sameness.
Also, see the Population Problem Hoax.
Reference Material
Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page
Return to HOME PAGE
Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)
Comments
Date: Sun Jul 11 10:41:17 2010
From: Will
Email:
Location: Austin TX
Comment:
Vic,
I’ve been going through some of your pages and holding myself back until finished, but it is a very frustrating process. I need to just make a couple of points and hear your reaction before I’m finished.
You don’t seem to know the difference between Democracy and Capitalism, and your lack of knowledge of your subject, which I have also noted elsewhere, is really showing here. If you don’t really understand your topic you shouldn’t be writing about it and touting yourself to be some sort of intellectual giant in the field. You seem to be writing this stuff to pump yourself up in the eyes of your readers, but where are your boa fides, what degrees do you hold and from what recognized intellectual platform do you speak?
My second point regards how you manage to get top search engine rating for your pages. How much do you pay to (or who do you know at) Google to get them to put any of your pages at the top of Google search results? First, when I Google “definition of Marxism” I find one of your misguided rants at the top of the heap. That’s what drew my into your Website in the first place. Now, when I Google “fatal premise” I find another such rant on top.
And I am left shaking my head and wondering why.
Will
Date: Sun Jul 11 18:47:11 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:
Will: Sorry to have shaken up your neat little world. You probably never noticed, but it seems that Democracy and Capitalism seem to go together very nicely, while both Democracy and Capitalism are each at rather extreme odds with any brand of Marxism, including so-called Socialism. Individual liberty – the ability to act freely in your own best interest as you see fit – is absolutely dependent upon a free and open marketplace. Which means Capitalism.
Restrict the market, and you restrict liberty. Restrict liberty, and you restrict the market. So you see, Democracy, involving as it does representative government rather than ruling government, is very much tied to Capitalism. You might be too well educated to know that. It’s very simple, really. The original American ideal still works. All we need here is free men, free markets and the rule of fixed law, rather than controlled or dependent men, planned markets and the variable rule of mere men, meaning dictatorship.
I have never claimed to be an intellectual. Your statement that I touted myself to be one is a lie, which makes you a liar, doesn’t it? Yes indeed, of the flagrant categorical variety.
My last name is Biorseth, not Google. I know no one at Google or at any other search-engine – owning company, and I pay no one or no business entity for any kind of page ranking. I have nothing whatsoever to do with where any of my WebPages rank with any search engines. This site contains hundreds of pages; some of them rank high, some low, but there is not much I can do about that once any page I’m working on is finished and finally published on my site. Go ask Google.
I bid you happy reading, and a rising up from snobbish intellectual elitism.
Regards,
Vic
Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.
|
